If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Ideally, they go hand in hand--or are both preserved, celebrated and nurtured equally and intertwined.....

However, given a choice of one or the other and not both, I would have to choose blood. I will always maintain that the foundation of culture lies firmly on the blood and without the folk, there is no culture. This isn't really a "which came first, the chicken of the egg?" type of situation where one begets the other. There had to be a folk before any of the extraneous and more superficial (but not trivial!!) entities became so--language, art, style, science, etc.

Also, I find that bloodlines are more fragile and easily damaged--and once altered for the worse, generations are required to dilute anything foreign. Certainly culture is similarly fragile but I believe it to be more plastic in nature and something that can be more quickly repaired or relearn.

I suppose that a breakdown in culture could/can/does lead to a breakdown in bloodlines as we are now seeing in the glorification of negro culture amongst European and Colonial whites and the startling rise in the acceptance of miscegenation with said negroes. That being said, I think that I'd rather see a white person listen to rap and marry a suitable and compatible white, giving rise to another generation of this ilk than I would to see a white listen to Bach and study Proto Indo-European all the while being married to a negro and giving rise to a brood of mulattos....

Re: Blood or Culture - What is worth more?

Here is what I wrote at Blut und Boden:

Ideally, they go hand in hand--or are both preserved, celebrated and nurtured equally and intertwined.....

However, given a choice of one or the other and not both, I would have to choose blood. I will always maintain that the foundation of culture lies firmly on the blood and without the folk, there is no culture. This isn't really a "which came first, the chicken of the egg?" type of situation where one begets the other. There had to be a folk before any of the extraneous and more superficial (but not trivial!!) entities became so--language, art, style, science, etc.

Also, I find that bloodlines are more fragile and easily damaged--and once altered for the worse, generations are required to dilute anything foreign. Certainly culture is similarly fragile but I believe it to be more plastic in nature and something that can be more quickly repaired or relearn.

I suppose that a breakdown in culture could/can/does lead to a breakdown in bloodlines as we are now seeing in the glorification of negro culture amongst European and Colonial whites and the startling rise in the acceptance of miscegenation with said negroes. That being said, I think that I'd rather see a white person listen to rap and marry a suitable and compatible white, giving rise to another generation of this ilk than I would to see a white listen to Bach and study Proto Indo-European all the while being married to a negro and giving rise to a brood of mulattos....

Re: Blood or Culture - What is worth more?

Both. One is useless without the other, although blood has slightly more value since it has the potential of generating culture, while the other way around is impossible.

Without "blood having more value" meaning that there is necessarily inherent value in, let's say (considering whites), being "white". Take a look at all that white trash out there. That is why I say that they are both equally important, and in the end, it is a very, very small elite that combines both elements in a constructive and fruitful way for the group (and as far as all racial groups concerned, not white alone).

Re: Blood or Culture - What is worth more?

Which is more important when thinking of "friend or foe": Blood or Culture?

My personal opinion: one third biological heritage; one third cultural heritage; one third self control/self training/self will.

I.e. not the standard dichotomy: Darwinism vs. behaviourism,

rather a trichotomy: 1. gift before birth 2. gift after birth 3. own earning

Originally Posted by Blutwlfin

If you have blond hair, blue eyes and Germanic features you are still not of Germanic if you dont accept the culture (see the wiggers: white people who want to be black, they dress black, talk black, and listen to rap and hip hop. They may look like Germanic Folk but they are not because they have no love for their own culture).

Thank you so much Blutwölfin! Actually, I'd already given up any hope that anybody some day would say something like that here in this forum.
There is really all too much racialism, and with the stress on racial theory, here.

All those White Power Fanatics completely forget how many East Indians (Hindus & Bengalis etc.) fought in the British, Blacks in the British and US Armies, for one or two centuries. (The US Americans have used the Navajo language as military code in WWII.)

The worldwide reputation and influence of the French policy, economy and culture rests to a great extent on the francophone Black Africans.

The Gurkhas - those admirable Nepalese warriors - are still, in this very moment, changing guards in front of Buckingham Palace. And I have no doubt they will risk their lives to protect the Queen, if God should have taken a nap.

Originally Posted by Blutwlfin

Is a foreigner, e.g. an Iranian, born in Sweden by Iranian parents, who is completely adapting Swedish culture, language and lifestyle and "denying" the Iranian culture of his forefathers "worth more" than a wigger?

Here in this forum, in the German section, we have discussed this Problem quite extensively:

I never underestimate the influence of culure in any respect, but even on race in a purely biological sense. For the preservation of one's own race as such also requires - can't be achieved without - a certain effort of the will. And this will-strength of course is partly inherited (to which "percentage" is debatable), but partly is a question of education, i.e. culture.

There cant' be the slightest doubt about that!

Why we talk so much about race mixing, is that all about aliens raping white women? Certainly not. It's not 100% rape. It's not even 20% rape.
It's the lost confidence of the white women in their race. Which is caused by a lack or lapse of cultural training.

AW: Blood or Culture - What is worth more?

For me it is of course blood, because culture is a results of people and without that people there are no culture. Maybe somebody act like a wigger or is ridiculous in this way or in an other way. I know this is a pity but if there is the origin blood, it is possible that the children of this person are upright to their own heritage and there is still a future.

You could say by the same token, that adopting Judaeo-Christianity and its beliefs and ways did not make Europeans Jews. It just made them think they were the children of the Jewish God and adopt the Jewish homeland as their own, placing its holy city in the centre of the Holy Roman Universe. The British had it so bad they even have a national song called "Jerusalem" in which they imagine rebuilding this city in their own country, believing that Jesus the Jew walked "upon England's mountains green". Amazingly, there are still people who insist that this is British cultural heritage and take their laws and ethics from a Jewish heretical sect instead of from their roots in European and Indo-European culture and specifically in Celtic and Germanic culture. They were willing to fight and kill each other over this anomaly. How do we then differ from the hapless Angolans or anyone indoctrinated and forced into this servitude of another's will?

Blood may have a higher meaning as culture is the product of blood. If your people don't protect his blood, he will lose his culture.

I think you have said everything. The alienated european (the wigger by example) is lost at this moment, but as long as his blood is intact there is a hope for a cultural rebirth. The stranger, who loves our culture, can give his worthy contribution, which must not be rejected, but his behaviour and way of thinking are not natural for him, and nothing tell us that his children will have the same affinities to our culture.

If I understand you correctly you say no more than I. Adopting an alien language, a alien religion, or alien costums and manners, that doesn't make one equal and that doesn't mean those who adopt such elements share the same culture but a resembling culture, since the original is impossible to imitate. The english just like all europeans may have a alien religion, that religion from the desert, but It doesn't turn us europeans in to jews. It only regretably weekned our cultural essence and perhaps forever.